Indefinite Detention Bill signed into Law today.

[Spikesoldier]

meanwhile, not a peep or mention of this bill being signed reported in the MSM.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Let's not forget it originated in the GOP House

And it took a democrat president to make it law. I never did get the partisan politics BS when it came to personal liberty/privacy.

 

[SilthDraeth]

And it took a democrat president to make it law. I never did get the partisan politics BS when it came to personal liberty/privacy.

Neither do I.

 

[Craig234]

And it took a democrat president to make it law. I never did get the partisan politics BS when it came to personal liberty/privacy.

I read 'let's not forget it originated in a GOP House' as a reminder in the middle of attacks on Obama that both parties supported it, not 'partisan BS'.

On the other hand, the Senate overwhelmingly passed it by both parties and the Democratic President signed it - after refusing to for the wrong reasons earlier.

Sorry, but parties do matter however much it makes the heads explode of self-described 'centrists' - it's worth nothing who does what. In this case, both did wrong.

 

[Darwin333]

I read 'let's not forget it originated in a GOP House' as a reminder in the middle of attacks on Obama that both parties supported it, not 'partisan BS'.

On the other hand, the Senate overwhelmingly passed it by both parties and the Democratic President signed it - after refusing to for the wrong reasons earlier.

Sorry, but parties do matter however much it makes the heads explode of self-described 'centrists' - it's worth nothing who does what. In this case, both did wrong.

Of worthy note, Obama's signing statement basically states that with his signature (and obviously the votes from Congress) he is giving future administrations the ability to "break with our most important traditions and values as a nation".

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Indefinite detention is the hallmark of every despotic regime throughout history, and habeas corpus rights have been around for centuries in developed countries to prevent just that. There is simply no excuse for the government to ever have the power to indefinitely imprison someone without charges.

Civil rights always seem like a small issue until your rights are the ones being violated.

For sure. The Constitution and our entire system is based on the idea of non just giving the government the benefit of the doubt as Matt suggested. That's the definition of the a right, it takes away to governments discretion to do certain things that it otherwise might want to do.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I'll quote one of the responses in the OP link:

bigenoughlie said...
Cleverly designed and carefully worded, the NDAA's detention authority is still just a codification of existing "homeland security" laws, which were passed amid the post-9/11 chaos. WE were asleep at the switch. This "detention authority" travesty should have been stopped dead in it's tracks 10 years ago. That authority has already been exercised and upheld by the appellate court. Now, specifically blessed by Congress, it is SET in CONCRETE.
The President's words, signing statement and "serious reservations" have no force or effect on the detention authority that WE, the people, have unconstitutionally granted to Mr. Obama.
Read the intentionally vague, ambiguous and circuitous wording of the provisions in the NDAA over and over again, and realize that WE, the people, have been had. This detention authority is intended to be used against U.S. citizens. The final draft could have clearly and unequivocally prohibited "indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without due process", (as does the Constitution), but IT DOESN'T. It WILL be misused, and the President's feigned disapproval is an insult to the American people.
Those who feel comfortable with this legislation simply don't understand what has been forfeited, why it was done 10 years after 9/11, and who sponsored it. But the dawn of understanding nears.
December 31, 2011 3:55 PM

 

[NoStateofMind]

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nybmn/ive_been_reading_ndaa_hr_1540_and_here_are_the/

I've skimmed this so far but I found something else that interesting in the above link.

SEC. 1231 - REPORT ON COALITION SUPPORT FUND REIMBURSEMENTS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN FOR OPERATIONS CONDUCTED IN SUPPORT OF OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.
SEC. 1232 - REVIEW AND REPORT ON IRAN’S AND CHINA’S CONVENTIONAL AND ANTI-ACCESS CAPABILITIES.
SEC. 1233 - REPORT ON ENERGY SECURITY OF THE NATO ALLIANCE.
SEC. 1234 - COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES REPORT ON THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
SEC. 1235 - MAN-PORTABLE AIR-DEFENSE SYSTEMS ORIGINATING FROM LIBYA.
SEC. 1236 - REPORT ON MILITARY AND SECURITY DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA.
SEC. 1237 - SENSE OF CONGRESS ON NON-STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND EXTENDED DETERRENCE POLICY.
SEC. 1238 - ANNUAL REPORT ON MILITARY AND SECURITY DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.
SEC. 1239 - REPORT ON EXPANSION OF PARTICIPATION IN EURO-NATO JOINT JET PILOT TRAINING PROGRAM.
SEC. 1240 - REPORT ON RUSSIAN NUCLEAR FORCES.
SEC. 1241 - REPORT ON PROGRESS OF THE AFRICAN UNION IN OPERATIONALIZING THE AFRICAN STANDBY FORCE.
SEC. 1242 - DEFENSE COOPERATION WITH REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA.
SEC. 1243 - PROHIBITION ON PROCUREMENTS FROM COMMUNIST CHINESE MILITARY COMPANIES.
SEC. 1244 - SHARING OF CLASSIFIED UNITED STATES BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE INFORMATION WITH THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.
SEC. 1245 - IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE FINANCIAL SECTOR OF IRAN.

This gets the obligatory "WTF?"

 

[Lanyap]

meanwhile, not a peep or mention of this bill being signed reported in the MSM.

They are slowly starting to pick it up but they appear to be apologizing for Obama.

With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens ...

Obama signs defense bill, pledges to maintain legal rights of US ...

Obama signs defense bill, with "reservations"

While healines from other non-MSM sources are not so forgiving.

New US Defense Act curtails liberties not military spending

 

[waggy]

if he had reservations he shouldn't have passed it. he does not get a pass because he did not like it..

the president just shit on the constitution and the people of the US.

 

[Nebor]

So.... when can I start detaining people?

 

[DAGTA]

Good hopefully it grabs as many of the radical Republicans in here as possible. :thumbsup:

Remember your words if/when you get silenced by a gov't out of control.

 

[DAGTA]

Let's not forget it originated in the GOP House

Wow. Even as the fundamentals of this country collapse, you still want to play 'Red Team vs Blue Team'

 

[woodie1]

Let's not forget it originated in the GOP House

So BHO had no choice but to sign it into law. Got it!

 

[Craig234]

if he had reservations he shouldn't have passed it. he does not get a pass because he did not like it..

the president just shit on the constitution and the people of the US.

Obama's signing statement comes across like 'if I say some nice things progressives want to hear, maybe it'll reduce the political price for signing it'. That's bad.

 

[monovillage]

Let's not forget it originated in the GOP House

and passed the Democrat Senate and was signed by a Democrat president. There's blame to go to each though, damn the Republicans that pass this crap and Bills like the Patriot Act and other "security" bills without thinking about the costs and abuses that will happen down the line.

 

[Craig234]

Of worthy note, Obama's signing statement basically states that with his signature (and obviously the votes from Congress) he is giving future administrations the ability to "break with our most important traditions and values as a nation".

Leaving us with the last branch to defend the constitution, the Supremes.

A good example why I saw the Supremes are a very important issue in electing President.

We really can't trust this current court to protect against this sort of thing any more than they did in Citizens v. United 5 to 4. Obama has done a lot better on Justices, at least.

 

[monovillage]

Only in your dreams. In any objective sense by reasonable people he's really screwed the pooch.

 

[SilthDraeth]

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nybmn/ive_been_reading_ndaa_hr_1540_and_here_are_the/

I've skimmed this so far but I found something else that interesting in the above link.



This gets the obligatory "WTF?"

Damn...

 

[waggy]

Leaving us with the last branch to defend the constitution, the Supremes.

hahahahhah oh yeah.

the same Supremes that said that private land can be taken to give to a private business? the same supremes that pretty much said you are renting the land from the goverment?

LOL fuck right.

 

[Triumph]

Leaving us with the last branch to defend the constitution, the Supremes.

If you can now be indefinitely detained without trial, and the only way to get to the Supreme Court is by continuously appealing a trial's outcome until you get to the Supreme Court, then how is this law ever going to be struck down?

 

[fskimospy]

If you can now be indefinitely detained without trial, and the only way to get to the Supreme Court is by continuously appealing a trial's outcome until you get to the Supreme Court, then how is this law ever going to be struck down?

People being indefinitely detained by the government can still file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus that the Supreme Court could choose to hear. (this is basically what happened with Jose Padilla and the Gitmo prisoners)

 

[Craig234]

If you can now be indefinitely detained without trial, and the only way to get to the Supreme Court is by continuously appealing a trial's outcome until you get to the Supreme Court, then how is this law ever going to be struck down?

There's a process for filing suits, like habeus corpus.

 

[leper84]

I am sorry but I have to go with Obama and our Government here. This is the kind of laws we need in place to help stop the terrorist plots against us. I certainly don't want to see an attack by a terrorist that kills 100 people that could have been stoped by a wire tapping or holding someone for questioning. Untill our Govermnet start abusing this law and holding US Citizens for petty crimes, then I see no harm to our civil rights.

You know, as a veteran, I can't even begin to describe how frustrating it is to think I put my ass on the line for a bunch of people who wanted to piss away their liberty regardlessly.

So does anyone still think Ron Paul is too 'racist' to vote for still?

Think he's still that crazy old uncle?

Think he's too outside the mainstream? Well look at what the mainstream just brought you....

 

[fskimospy]

You know, as a veteran, I can't even begin to describe how frustrating it is to think I put my ass on the line for a bunch of people who wanted to piss away their liberty regardlessly.

So does anyone still think Ron Paul is too 'racist' to vote for still?

Think he's still that crazy old uncle?

Think he's too outside the mainstream? Well look at what the mainstream just brought you....

Ron Paul is most certainly someone that no one in their right mind should vote for but that's mostly due to his horrible understanding of basic economics, not his view on civil liberties.